Has anyone considered that Hostess might have failed because sales were flagging because their main product was essentially the punchline to every joke about unhealthy food in the last ten years? Seriously, who the hell eats Twinkies? They're fucking nasty. I've had one in my life, and that's enough, thanks. They had a few other snack cakes that were less disgusting, but I still haven't touched that crap since I was twelve.

(17-11-2012 02:50 AM)I and I Wrote: I just got back from the strip club and checked out some bad ass pussy, has anyone explained why rich fucks were getting raises while they were asking workers to take less wages?

The clubs were fucking great tonight....Cheers.

I went to strip club recently. One of those where you can take the girls into a quiet room for a private session.

Before I screwed her, I was chatting to a very pretty girl and she was surprisingly articulate.

I asked, while I was banging her from behind, "How did you end up as a hostess here?"

She said "Well, a girl's gotta eat. I used to have a job as an accountant at a bakery...."

The following 3 users Like DLJ's post:3 users Like DLJ's postFSM_scot (17-11-2012), I and I (17-11-2012), BryanS (17-11-2012)

(16-11-2012 11:59 PM)themanchicken Wrote: No argument, the union should have fought for the workers. That is why we need more rank-and-file leadership in these unions.

That said, these workers had a lot more say in their union than they had in their management. The bosses decided to take their ball (and the ball of the workers) and go home because it would have been too much of a hardship for them to reduce margins to take care of workers.

Legacy pensions are seldom the problem in these deals, there are funds constructed for this.

Also, recognize that the liquidation is a way of busting these unions, and even Bloomberg is reporting this. I find it a little surprising that a free-thinker didn't consider that the senior management of Hostess may have done this to bust a union rather than for real financial reasons:

To me, this is pretty simple. The management wanted to cram massive pay cuts down the throats of workers, stopped paying into the pension fund (illegally), and then when workers went out on strike they threatened for a few weeks to bust the strike, and then just walked away because they didn't want to play ball with workers who weren't going to roll over and accept these concessions.

Before you pretend like the union victimized its members again, please recognize that they had a strike authorization vote, and that they had a vote on the contract that management tried to cram down their throat. The Maeva Group - a vulture capitalist buy & liquidate consulting firm - constructed much of this mess. This is how Mitt Romney made his millions, and it's clearly where the interests and priorities of the owners of Hostess lie as well.

Contrary to what you said, the Teamsters called for a secret ballot, and their membership voted 53% to approve concessions. The BCTGM held votes in their halls wherein more than 90% of their membership rejected the concessions. The Teamsters were trying to push workers into the direction of accepting the massive cuts (more than 27% for some), but the BCTGM refused.

These workers exercised their rights, the bosses combined with their vulture capitalist buddies decided to give one final "fuck you" to the workers after all of the illegal labor practices.

I know you SAY you did your homework on this one... but I'm just not seeing it. You missed the part where the vulture capitalist came in and illegally sabotaged the pension fund, or the part where they illegally threatened to close factories if workers wouldn't accept concessions, and you also missed the part where the workers VOTED to go out on strike and to reject the offer.

Couple corrections--I never said the Teamsters didn't call for a secret ballot. The baker's union didn't. And the public statement I from the Teamsters that I posted upthread included the Teamster's call for the baker's union to have a secret ballot. Doesn't it concern you that the baker's union never offered their members the opportunity to vote on a secret ballot like the Teamsters called on them to do? 90% voice votes sure do sound like the baker's union was doing most of the cajoling whereas the Teamsters got a completely different result with a secret ballot.

Quote: “Unions have been losing power for years,” said Ken Rumney, a striking worker outside of the Hostess plant in Biddeford on Friday. “This is an exceptional case. If Hostess had been allowed to get away with what they’d been trying to do, other corporations would have lined up to try the same tactics. Hopefully, this will be an example to other companies not to [try to] break their unions.”

“I think we’re the first ones who have stood up and said, ‘We’re not going to let you get away with it,’” said Sue Tapley, the strike captain on hand Friday morning at the Biddeford plant, which employed nearly 600 people. “You can fight them. You can shut them down.”

Sure sounds like the bakers' unions are really proud of shutting the company down. Good on them!

The sacrificial lambs who lost their jobs can be satisfied that their sacrifice was for a greater cause. However I suspect some may be thinking right now that it would have been nice to have had someone actually fight for their jobs.

This wasn't a sacrifice, this was workers exercising their rights. As for the secret ballot, I don't believe that the workers asked for one. Secret ballot is a way for the union leadership to push concessions, not a way for an actual vote. A vote on the hall floor leads to debate and discussion which is in no way a bad thing. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, a secret ballot is actually a "shut up and take these concessions" ballot.

(17-11-2012 02:50 AM)I and I Wrote: I just got back from the strip club and checked out some bad ass pussy, has anyone explained why rich fucks were getting raises while they were asking workers to take less wages?

The clubs were fucking great tonight....Cheers.

I went to strip club recently. One of those where you can take the girls into a quiet room for a private session.

Before I screwed her, I was chatting to a very pretty girl and she was surprisingly articulate.

I asked, while I was banging her from behind, "How did you end up as a hostess here?"

She said "Well, a girl's gotta eat. I used to have a job as an accountant at a bakery...."

Yes they usually are intelligent....except for the idea of slobbing on knobs as a way of moving up in the world.

(17-11-2012 12:12 AM)BryanS Wrote: Couple corrections--I never said the Teamsters didn't call for a secret ballot. The baker's union didn't. And the public statement I from the Teamsters that I posted upthread included the Teamster's call for the baker's union to have a secret ballot. Doesn't it concern you that the baker's union never offered their members the opportunity to vote on a secret ballot like the Teamsters called on them to do? 90% voice votes sure do sound like the baker's union was doing most of the cajoling whereas the Teamsters got a completely different result with a secret ballot.

Sure sounds like the bakers' unions are really proud of shutting the company down. Good on them!

The sacrificial lambs who lost their jobs can be satisfied that their sacrifice was for a greater cause. However I suspect some may be thinking right now that it would have been nice to have had someone actually fight for their jobs.

This wasn't a sacrifice, this was workers exercising their rights. As for the secret ballot, I don't believe that the workers asked for one. Secret ballot is a way for the union leadership to push concessions, not a way for an actual vote. A vote on the hall floor leads to debate and discussion which is in no way a bad thing. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, a secret ballot is actually a "shut up and take these concessions" ballot.

What fatuous drivel! You can't possibly believe what you just wrote here. You are saying that there is more pressure to conform with the crowd in a secret ballot than in a voice vote?

(17-11-2012 12:12 AM)BryanS Wrote: Sure sounds like the bakers' unions are really proud of shutting the company down. Good on them!

I say good on them as well... but I am actually sincere.

(17-11-2012 12:41 AM)BryanS Wrote: In this situation, there can be a greater cause, but I think what happened here with the baker's union is that the union leaders had an agenda that was not in line with the members, and that the members were not fully informed of the likelihood that the company would close if they continued their strike. I highly doubt that the employees at a rate of 90% voluntarily sacrificed their jobs just to make a statement. I think that was the point of the teamsters pleading publicly for the baker's union to give their members a chance to have a secret vote on the issue after they had more time to think about the negotiated offer. I also think the 'greater cause' in this situation was counterproductive for the baker's union. They think this action will cause the next employer to think twice about fighting them. I think they have just added to public perceptions that unions will fight to the point that the company is no longer viable and infact puts employment at risk. The Teamsters did the responsible thing--negotiated hard and long, but with the company's viability and protection of their member's jobs in mind.

There are several things you've previously stated Bryan which I do agree with. However, your speculation may not be entirely accurate. I might be a bit closer to this particular situation. I do know that each and every worker I questioned on the picket line in my town, knew absolutely that their plant would close. They knew it would either be now or probably sometime after the first of the year. Being well aware of management dealings, they knew the ball would soon be dropping.

For several years, many companies had shopped around and offered numerous times to buy out several of the IBC plants but Interstate wouldn't let go. During negotiations, the Teamsters viewed the contract they accepted as a way to prolong stability, during which time IBC would sell off various properties. IBC had been going under for years and were essentially backed into a corner. Even if the confectionary union had taken any deal offered, the majority of the plants would have been closed up by February, anyway. They knew the plants would be bought for almost nothing by companies which made quite reasonable offers in years past. These workers realized they really had nothing to lose that wasn't already lost.

Not to worry, though... in my particular town it is already well known that Bimbo is currently buying the plant for a fraction of what they offered five years ago. Disregarding worker requests in 2007, IBC refused their bid, stating to workers that Bimbo would "buy the plant and move it to Mexico". So now, most of the workers who are out of their IBC bakery jobs will be working for the very company they wanted IBC to sell out to five years ago. I remember quite well when the suits came to court IBC - small towns know how to keep a secret, don't they?

And the Teamsters... well, truck drivers can get a job in any town for any company... most of them will be hired right back there. A majority of the truckers who worked there, are very glad they will probably be back to their home-based job after the first of the year. As always, the Teamsters negotiated for the best deal they could for the time being, mostly because... they knew the situation was going to be temporary. Don't get me wrong - things are pretty tight for Teamsters right now. Some of them are pissed that they accepted this contract with pay cut. While others are just as pissed because even though the "right thing" was done, they have to put the GI-Joe with the kung fu grip on layaway until they get another job. If they don't quite get the shit end of the stick, it seems that workers remain somewhere in the middle to scramble, here in the wealthiest of nations.

Now, the Teamsters will be back in negotiations for new contracts with whatever new companies buy out the broken up IBC plants and so will the BCTGM union. I am confident the new companies will be advised of past worker situations, I also hope they will be made aware of past management situations which they may not wish to revisit.

Please realize - this is just what I've gathered from living quite close to this one particular plant. I can't say what went on in any other plant nor can I speak for any strikers, other than the ones I met and have know for many years, some of whom have worked at this plant for thirty plus years.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein